Robot Armies
MonsieurEvil
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">ex-ter-mi-naaaattteee</div> All obscure Dalek references aside, I stumbled across this article at the register and thought it might breed some interesting conversation. It's shamelessly reprinted below, for her pleasure...
<a href='http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/29366.html' target='_blank'>http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/29366.html</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Robogrunt: the US military's plans for robot armies
By John Lettice
Posted: 18/02/2003 at 11:59 GMT
The US military's current armoury of unmanned spyplanes and weapons is to be vastly expanded through the addition of armies of robot soldiers, replacing and/or supplementing the real grunts, reports Billings Gazette.
Ultimately, the vision is that the grunts themselves become geeks, or perhaps more likely, are transformed into callcentre grunts, sitting in a control room coordinating multiple fighting, scouting and UN peace-keeping (wonder if they're doing these?) robots.
Billings refers to a US National Academy of Sciences report which defines four classes of robot: Searcher, which does reconnaissance; Donkey, which humps stuff (no, not like that); Wingman, which seems to be some kind of remote-controlled light tank; and Hunter-Killer, a platoon of ten unmanned vehicles which themselves contain up to five small observation vehicles apiece. Hunter-Killer's ability to strike deep into enemy territory, no matter how dangerous, should allow the US military to dispense entirely with Europeans, except maybe for sweeping up afterwards.
We should stress that the Billings report does not say that last bit.
The whole concept does however have resonance to anyone who's read DARPA's recently-published Strategic Plan. We hope to have time to bring you more on this amazing document shortly, but for now the particularly relevant section is 3.3. Networked Manned and Unmanned Systems.
DARPA has a vision "of filling the battlespace with unmanned systems that are networked with manned systems. The idea is not simply to replace people with machines, but to team people with robots to create more capable, agile, and cost-effective force that lowers the risk of US casualties." FCS, Future Combat Systems, is a major part of this.
FCS "will be a networked system-of-systems that includes manned and unmanned ground vehicles, along with various unmanned air vehicles. The goal is to develop Units of Action that have the lethality and survivability of an M1-based heavy force, but with the agility of today's light forces. FCS brigades will be able to deploy anywhere in the world within 96 hours."
Callcentre grunts controlling this little lot should not however kid themselves that they're entirely safe. We refer them to 3.7. Bio-Revolution.
"This thrust is a comprehensive effort to harness the insights and power of biology to make US warfighters and their equipment stronger, safer, and more effective... DARPA is mining these new discoveries for concepts and applications that could enhance US national security in revolutionary ways... DARPA's programs to thwart the threat of biological attack have brought significant biological expertise into the Agency. This created an impetus and a capability to begin a major exploration of the national security potential of cutting-edge research in the life sciences."
Had you noticed, by the way, where the results of the smallpox research grid project are going? Quite. But DARPA has bigger seafood to fry. "Enhanced System Performance refers to creating new systems with the autonomy and adaptability of living things by developing materials, processes, and devices inspred by living systems. For example, DARPA-sponsored researchers are studying how geckos climb walls and how an octopus hides to find new approaches to locomotion and highly adaptive camouflage.... Enhanced Human Performance is aimed at preventing humans from becoming the weakest link in the US military. The goal is to exploit the life sciences to make the individual warfighter stronger, more alert, more endurant, and better able to heal."
Still with us, callcentre grunts? It's starting to sound a little ominous, isn't it? It gets worse. "Perhaps the program that best exemplifies the 'revolution in Bio-Revolution is the Brain Machine Interface program. This program is finding ways to detect and directly decode signals in the brain so that thought can be turned into acts performed by a machine... imagine US warfighters that only need use the power of their thoughts to do things at great distances." No, we can't either.
Much else of wonder and amazement, including space warfare and a military PDA, in the full report. But it's too good to rush, so we'll get back to it. ® <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seeds of our own matrix-like destruction? Or good way to keep some of our kids from getting hurt trying to take down the Taliban? Certainly is a good counter to the islamic fundamentalists that think nothing of blowing up themselves and some Marines at a checkpoint. Now they won't have 72 virgins in the afterlife, just 72 capaciters and diodes... <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Chitty-chitty-chat-chat...
<a href='http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/29366.html' target='_blank'>http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/29366.html</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Robogrunt: the US military's plans for robot armies
By John Lettice
Posted: 18/02/2003 at 11:59 GMT
The US military's current armoury of unmanned spyplanes and weapons is to be vastly expanded through the addition of armies of robot soldiers, replacing and/or supplementing the real grunts, reports Billings Gazette.
Ultimately, the vision is that the grunts themselves become geeks, or perhaps more likely, are transformed into callcentre grunts, sitting in a control room coordinating multiple fighting, scouting and UN peace-keeping (wonder if they're doing these?) robots.
Billings refers to a US National Academy of Sciences report which defines four classes of robot: Searcher, which does reconnaissance; Donkey, which humps stuff (no, not like that); Wingman, which seems to be some kind of remote-controlled light tank; and Hunter-Killer, a platoon of ten unmanned vehicles which themselves contain up to five small observation vehicles apiece. Hunter-Killer's ability to strike deep into enemy territory, no matter how dangerous, should allow the US military to dispense entirely with Europeans, except maybe for sweeping up afterwards.
We should stress that the Billings report does not say that last bit.
The whole concept does however have resonance to anyone who's read DARPA's recently-published Strategic Plan. We hope to have time to bring you more on this amazing document shortly, but for now the particularly relevant section is 3.3. Networked Manned and Unmanned Systems.
DARPA has a vision "of filling the battlespace with unmanned systems that are networked with manned systems. The idea is not simply to replace people with machines, but to team people with robots to create more capable, agile, and cost-effective force that lowers the risk of US casualties." FCS, Future Combat Systems, is a major part of this.
FCS "will be a networked system-of-systems that includes manned and unmanned ground vehicles, along with various unmanned air vehicles. The goal is to develop Units of Action that have the lethality and survivability of an M1-based heavy force, but with the agility of today's light forces. FCS brigades will be able to deploy anywhere in the world within 96 hours."
Callcentre grunts controlling this little lot should not however kid themselves that they're entirely safe. We refer them to 3.7. Bio-Revolution.
"This thrust is a comprehensive effort to harness the insights and power of biology to make US warfighters and their equipment stronger, safer, and more effective... DARPA is mining these new discoveries for concepts and applications that could enhance US national security in revolutionary ways... DARPA's programs to thwart the threat of biological attack have brought significant biological expertise into the Agency. This created an impetus and a capability to begin a major exploration of the national security potential of cutting-edge research in the life sciences."
Had you noticed, by the way, where the results of the smallpox research grid project are going? Quite. But DARPA has bigger seafood to fry. "Enhanced System Performance refers to creating new systems with the autonomy and adaptability of living things by developing materials, processes, and devices inspred by living systems. For example, DARPA-sponsored researchers are studying how geckos climb walls and how an octopus hides to find new approaches to locomotion and highly adaptive camouflage.... Enhanced Human Performance is aimed at preventing humans from becoming the weakest link in the US military. The goal is to exploit the life sciences to make the individual warfighter stronger, more alert, more endurant, and better able to heal."
Still with us, callcentre grunts? It's starting to sound a little ominous, isn't it? It gets worse. "Perhaps the program that best exemplifies the 'revolution in Bio-Revolution is the Brain Machine Interface program. This program is finding ways to detect and directly decode signals in the brain so that thought can be turned into acts performed by a machine... imagine US warfighters that only need use the power of their thoughts to do things at great distances." No, we can't either.
Much else of wonder and amazement, including space warfare and a military PDA, in the full report. But it's too good to rush, so we'll get back to it. ® <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seeds of our own matrix-like destruction? Or good way to keep some of our kids from getting hurt trying to take down the Taliban? Certainly is a good counter to the islamic fundamentalists that think nothing of blowing up themselves and some Marines at a checkpoint. Now they won't have 72 virgins in the afterlife, just 72 capaciters and diodes... <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Chitty-chitty-chat-chat...
Comments
*cries for humanity*
thats all I have to contribute.
oh
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't know what weapons WWIII will be fought with, but I do know WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Developing systems that minimate the own losses is pretty much an obligation to every army. The question is whether the technological realization of this is really waterproof.
Would it be similar to your childhood, when a few kids with their remote-controlled cars gather in the playground to race them all over the park? Sure, a bit of bumping and colliding might ensue during the race, but ultimately one kid would win and stand victorious among the crowd of onlookers while the rest pick up their cars and walk home.
So is that what war will soon come to? A bunch of higher-tech RC cars scrambling all over the battlefield?
that does sound strangely like the matrix' first AI. I think i remember Morpheus talking about a man controling everything in the Matrix, and that Neo is his reincarnation.
They are not using Terminator 800 AI, for gosh sakes. They are, as was mentioned earlier, high-tech RC cars. Human controlled, owned, and operated.
/me mutters and walks off, wishing people would stop skimming and assuming...
Yes, they are human-controlled. Yet, the idea of completely self-sustained combat vehicles is, to say the least, bound to be bugged. Imagine a malfunction that accidentally activates the rifle of a machine somewhere in a street while doing patrooling jobs. All more or less justified morallic fear aside, there is something inherently scary about a 'Windows M16'.
However, as I gathered, these are effectively human controlled vehicles, so the concept of robots taking over is not really relevant in this case.
However, if A.I. -is- developed, I think Asimov's Laws of Robotics should seriously be implemented, as it effectively removes any threat of Matrix-esque robot conquest.
**Calling the Attention of all avid Video Gamers. We need your assistance**
Behold ! The army of the future. With rippling thumb and finger muscles.
I can imagine the dark rooms, with office chairs, headsets and techno music blazing in the background.
And the door into the room, labeled as Spec. Ops.
"OMG, he killed my robot... wallhacker."
"WTH? OMG ADMIN STOP SCREWING WITH THE GRAVITY"
hahaha
Ever seen Terminator: Armagedon? Did you see the scene where the Terminator gets staked, but later finds a alternate power-route and regains enough energy to finish the job on that morphing-metalic-machine-thingie?
THAT is what makes robot battles scary, even if it is Robot vs Robot.
Whoever has the best car wins in a street race.
Now just immagine a human rebel force fighting a robot.
The robot has in its corner:
Heavy/special weapons - grenade launcher(s), heavy machine gun(s), anything that will fit or could possibly be attached and worked to be fired by the machine at that time that a human just cant carry or use properly (Vulcan machine gun or Rail Gun?).
Superior amounts of armor (titanium?) than a human can carry.
The ability to re-route power like Terminator did, basically taking massive body damage and still be going. (energizer?)
The human has in its corner:
A gun that the human can carry and fire correctly.
Armor that is light enough to provide enough mobility, and good enough to protect against basic combat hazards; ie: bullets.
Against the robot:
EMP
Jammers
Special human-developed weapons to penetrate armor of robot and damage circutry(sadly this can only get heavier and better, since lower-mark weapons may not even scratch the higher-mark robots)
Against the Human:
Take one shot and your wounded, and bleeding. Eventually you will die ("IM HIT!" and soon after "MEDIC!" comes to mind).
In melee combat against something that may have a melee weapon that can cut through flesh easy (doom chainsaw?)
The robots better ability to deal out mass destruction (think 100 missile battery pod, or quad-chain guns on one arm)
Robot vs Robot = no human casualties
Robot vs Human = 1 BIPEDAL robot to +10 human ratio (prolly 50). just think of what a tank with tri-machine gun turret with full 360 rotation + 360 view range ratio would be (i estimate 1 : 100-400 PLUS).
There is ALWAYS atleast some human casualties.
also, immaging one human group, lets say, Alpha group is making AI controled tanks and fighting Beta group. Beta and Alpha declared war on eachother, and Alpha uses the AI tanks to fight for them. the tanks do have a "human" sense to themselves, but are far more calculating. Beta group after awhile plays on the robot group's AI, and declares war on the Robot Group.
Why is this so bad? It gives the AI a sense of "hey, im not controled by alpha group... im indipendant." soon followed by "ok, aplha group you used us, so we declare war on you, too." Alpha group then has to scramble and recover whatever it can from the misshap... now there are two human groups, one is obviously weaker, the other stronger, and a robot menace that has free range. Free thought. Free enough to think of weapons and to adapt.
IF that ever happens the human race is buggered foever, unless we vacate the planet with the message "ok, you win. leave us alone, please." and find another world to inhabit. because machine > human (which would win, bone or steel?)
Also, immage the threat of hacking. A terrorist could literally "Trojan" inside of a tank, and fire off some rounds into the crowd w/o ever leaving his seat!
Its that reason that makes the theme "What is this thing?" so dreadful. Once upon a time you had to run up to the enemy and poke him full of holes while staring at him. Now you die impersonal deaths by a sniper's bullet, never knowing who killed you; or what killed you (refering to the robot, not the bullet!)
They are scary because it further lessens the inhibitions to go to war if you have no casualties to fear. There used to be a time when the leader who declared a war had to fight in it himself. That ensured that he wouldn't do it needlessly. Now the leader keeps sitting behind his desk, and others fight and die for him.
If even these costs disappear and the greatest danger is the loss of some high-tech machines, wars will be commonplace. <b>That</b> is scary. Especially if only one country has the robots.
Ok, trying to best steer this back to a sane heading
THESE ARE NOT ROBOTS. THEY HAVE NO CAPACITY TO "THINK" FOR THEMSELVES. THEY ARE REMOTE CONTROLLED DRONES. PILOTED BY HUMANS.
No need to fear Arnold Braunsweiger coming back from the dead 14 times.
Yes, the side with the best robots will win. As its always been. The side with the best weapons, the best training, the best tacticians. Whats the fuss about? Its just continuing a trend that was started (really) after the first world war, technology allowing increased remoteness and therefore safety for the average grunt.
For crying out loud, they've had remote bombers for over a decade now, OMG THEY HAEV ROBOT PLAINS! THEY WILL BOMZ0R US BAC TO TEH STONE AGEZ0R!!!"""ITS TEH TERMINATOE!!!"
Sure there are possibilties that there will be malfunctions, as with any equipment. I imagine that there will be extensive safeguards to stop any collateral damage if they happen in civilian areas. Weigh that against the number of soldiers that wouldn't be coming home if they were on the battlefield instead of a tracked vehicle.
Its a positive thing ladeez an gennelmen.
Ask yourself this, would you have such a big problem with it if there were men inside these giant robots of doom?
However, Humans and more importantly biological systems have a distinct advantage over their robotic counterparts.
No matter how intelligent you make a robot, it will ultimately need maintenance. Unless we are dumb enough to make the robots self sufficient, they will fall apart and wear away before we have a chance to die out on their hands. Humans are also more adaptive then machine counterparts. For example, a machine designed to hunt down and kill humans might not realize that said humans might have bombs strapped to them.
Robots individually may be superior to humans, but when humans are in great enough numbers, they will cooperate to a single goal.
In a short term conflict, robots will win out, but in an overall long term conflict, provided the robots are fairly static, the end game is unclear. Humans can do more then fight, they can think, and the human form is highly general, a hand can wield a gun or type on a keyboard. Machines are stuck in static but effective forms.
The verdict is still out on man vs machine, but mans generalising capabilities and machines physical superiority remains to be their advantages...
Match of the year! Talebans vs. US Marines in CS, losing team gives up and goes home and winning team gains respect and glory <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Somehow I think that computer controlled vehicles with machineguns mounted on top are a little less reliable than soldiers. I mean soldier starts shooting at enemies
"Take that you scum!...oh damn, LAG"
*connection lost*
"omghaxiitlol! I need cable modem!"
Also it could change the nature of the war in to frag-hunt. The nerds shooting people through their screens might not think they are killing people. Is that good or bad, I don't know.
I'm all for it. Sending a remote vehicle to take out an ammo dump, or bridge rather than risk a demo team.
And the geek shall inherit the earth....
Nowdays warfare is a buisiness that is undertaken with considerable restraint: modern industrial power can pump out a lot of machines but all those soft shelled humans require extensive training and investments to become efficient fighting forces. Remove the humans from the equation, and suddenly warfare seems a lot more tempting. Lose some robots? Who cares, we'll build some more. With the human cost removed, warfare loses it's one great factor which holds it back from simply becoming the solution to all international disputes.
It's a lot easier to train a soldier to work in a simulated environment such as sugested with these machines. Hence, countries could feild more soldiers but make in nice safe re-enforced bunkers. With the offensive
capacities taken care of in the form of robots entire nations could fortify their borders. Imagine a future United States, it's borders guarded by legions of robotic forces, with all of the heartland and nation protected by vast air defense networks and anti-ballistic missile defenses. Now imagine China or Russia with exactly the same set-up, which would be the inevitable result of such a build-up. Now bring about a war situation. Why would such wars end? Sheer exhastion of natural resources might be the reason, but with improved recycling techniques and advances in synthetics we could see virtually unlimited resources for such war machines.
If you remove the human elemant from warfare it becomes the mere clash of 2 nations industrial power, and given advances in defensive technology we could witness the end of MAD in the near future. Once that occurs, coupled with possible robotic armies, we could likely see a resumption of conflict that would make previous wars look like picnics. It might initially mean less human casualties, but in the long run it could result in decade long wars that would exhast the resources of our planet.
Subject for another topic, I guess.
Best points so far have been that we've been using this sort of technology for years. Ever heard of a cruise missile?
Also, say two countries with mechanized armies fight each other. When most of the mechs get destroyed, what now? It's not like the war is over.
The hunter-killer drones in the article have one essential component without which it cannot function at all. A human. Even if control is lost as with common remote controlled vehicles it would likely just stop. I guarantee there will be a way of switching them off, external to the usual control system. Even the cruise has an abort command.
I have to reiterate that these have no control of themselves, they simply augment the human at the controls without having to risk soldier's lives.
Also I very much doubt that these things will replace the average grunt, the cost would be astonomical. they will be battlefield tools for specialist tasks. Think more LAPD bomb disposal robot than OCP ED-209.
Hmmm... not your best example, as they do not detonate when they fail, due to their safeguards. What was the accuracy rate of B-29 bombers over tokyo?
Worst case? Sure, but it has to be considered.
Second, MonsE:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hmmm... not your best example, as they do not detonate when they fail, due to their safeguards.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This leaves two possible options: Either, all the pictures of Iraqi civilians in the ruins of their homes, located in the middle of housing districts with the militaric significance of a dead squid, were faked, or the US military targetted these completely innocent people on purpose. Which do you prefer?